Letters to the Editor
-
@ What Constitution?
Re: The "really good hearsay exception".
Indeed. I like that. It summarises the 'argument' perfectly; that's what the "ticking time bomb" argument is at base. I put it up on my blog.
Cheers,
-
ondelette.
I am thankful and overly obnoxious to the goop?
If I leave gasping and wheezing I'm not at death door,
yet,
If a neocon is in a deathbed, those who gather around,
O, may,
O, say,
"Shoo!"
"Get back!"
That's in the Tao.
If one is rat's liver?
O, okay. So be it then.
The Tao teaches what is true & marvelous.
What we witness is a great change. Achoo!
The only Way for me to 'shoo' is to turn off.
-
Arne. ~0.
You may be material for a presentational cannondate with sum-body?
Yow arse a true patriot.
Or, an American tin-can?
I tease you.
No eat pretzels.
-
Absolutely jaw-dropping
Over at Emptywheel, Marcy Wheeler is live-blogging the Mukasey testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee. There are several continuing outrages.
Apparently, Mukasey will not say whether he was instructed not to support the subpoenas of Miers and Bolton. Further, he appears to argue that even if torture is carried out under a flawed legal opinion from OLC, then those carrying out the torture are still immune from prosecution.
Add Mukasey to the list of criminals in need of immediate impeachment and trial for war crimes.
Here is the current thread from Marcy:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/02/07/mukasey-oversight-hjc-edition-part-two/
-
International law, treaties and such!
Are you crazy omelette! How, pray tell, do you think THAT would spread freedom and democracy around the world? (Besides, we -me and Glenn, anyway- are still working feverishly on U.S. law.)
Look, everybody knows (including Hillary) that even a simple matter like the Levin Amendment (to the AUMF) does nothing but give the UN "VETO power" over the U.S. Congress's right to spread freedom and democracy around the world. And everybody knows that's un-american.
Tzu sue says: which came first, chicken and egg.
over easy,
bah.
ps. Glenn says send quarters for the slot machines.
-
CIA boss: Waterboarding may be illegal
By LARA JAKES JORDAN and PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - CIA Director Michael Hayden cast doubt on the legality of waterboarding on Thursday, a day after the White House said the harsh interrogation tactic has saved American lives and could be used in the future.
Hayden told the House Intelligence Committee that he officially prohibited CIA operatives from using waterboarding in 2006 in the wake of a Supreme Court decision and new laws on the treatment of U.S. detainees.
He said the agency has not used waterboarding for "just a few weeks short" of five years. He officially prohibited it from CIA interrogations in 2006.
"It is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute," Hayden said.
Though now legally questionable, Hayden said waterboarding was legal in 2002 and 2003, a time period when the technique was used to interrogate Al-Qaida detainees.
"All the techniques that we've used have been deemed to be lawful," he said.
Hayden's comments came just hours after Attorney General Michael Mukasey, in a separate House hearing, said the Justice Department would not investigate whether U.S. interrogators broke the law when waterboarding accused terrorists following the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Whatever was done as part of a CIA program, at the time that it was done, was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through Office of Legal Counsel — and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then," Mukasey told the House Judiciary Committee.
Calling waterboarding an "odious practice," House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. asked Mukasey point-blank if he would "start a criminal investigation into whether this confirmed use of waterboarding by U.S. agents was illegal."
"No, I am not," Mukasey answered bluntly.
He said the Justice Department could not investigate or prosecute people for actions that it had earlier authorized.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/mukasey_torture
-
Actually, bahhummingbug
If you and Glenn are concentrating on U.S. Law, I would remind the two of you that according to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, so-called Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions holds the power of law "in the conflict with al Qaeda", and applies to both the commission of and ordering the commission of prohibited acts (ca. pp 67-68 of the decision). Here's Common Article 3:
Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
My emphasis
Doesn't that mean you U.S. Law guys should worry about it? Shouldn't you also worry about the following two articles, given the Court's attitude towards Geneva?
Art 129. The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed. or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the present Convention.
Art 130. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.
Do U.S. Law guys believe in the rule of these laws too? Sorry to burst on you, but sometimes it seems U.S. Law guys don't believe in international treaties, regardless of how basic, and regardless of what our courts have ruled. Leastwise, they don't seem to want to ever talk about them. Is that spine?